I don’t know how you caught that. The Luterbacher data is on even .5 degree coordinates while the rest of the data isn’t.

Very nice. There has to be some kind of interpolation going on.

Well the average of the 89 series of the original original set is the nearly an exact match to the average for the 71 series from the final original set.

]]>By: Steve McIntyrehttps://climateaudit.org/2008/09/19/mann-2008-the-luterbacher-mystery/#comment-162866
Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:18:48 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3705#comment-162866In temperature datasets, they divide the world into 5 degree gridcells with centers at say 62.5N, 12.5E. If you look at the information in the table SD1 in Mann’s SI, the Luterbacher series are all associated with different gridcells. However, we have no original Luter data to compare it to, so it’s hard to say what he’s using.
]]>By: Jeff Idhttps://climateaudit.org/2008/09/19/mann-2008-the-luterbacher-mystery/#comment-162865
Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:14:31 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3705#comment-162865Ok, I have spent enough time on this. It sucks being a newbie. When you say gridcell, do you mean that the Luterbacher data was in individual gridcells? Mann used some averaging or RegEM between gridcells?

I thought he did that for measured temperature only.

I just ran the average of the ‘original’ deleted 89 luterbacher series and it matches the average of the new Luterbacher within .15 standard deviation at the worst point. It is a near perfect fit.

I have chased this around my software for hours now. I kept asking how could they be the same average?

]]>By: Steve McIntyrehttps://climateaudit.org/2008/09/19/mann-2008-the-luterbacher-mystery/#comment-162862
Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:37:02 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3705#comment-162862#6. Jeff, there’s one other possibility. In the WDCP infilled data set, there are 1355 series with the same core of 1209 series, but the other 146 series are 2×71 Luterbacher series (said to be summer, winter) and 4 log versions of the disturbed Finnish sediments. Why don’t you check and see if they’ve labelled a winter or summer Luterbacher series as annual?
]]>By: Steve McIntyrehttps://climateaudit.org/2008/09/19/mann-2008-the-luterbacher-mystery/#comment-162861
Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:32:14 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3705#comment-162861#7. That was one of the things that I did in MM2003, where we found such interesting things as Mann’s unreported “adjustment” of the Gaspe series to “get” it into the troublesome AD1400 network. This was the ONLY such extension frontwards of a series in the entire archive. From an accounting perspective, this had alarm bells all over it, but no one in climate science cared. I collected quite a few series, but could only get a portion of them.

In the new data, many underlying series are at WDCP, but many are not. To my knowledge, the Briffa MXD data (called “SChweingruber” here) is available nowhere. I’ve sent an FOI to CRU in England but have received no response yet. They generally refuse FOI requests on one pretext or another but we keep trying and get occasional snippets.

I haven’t been able to obtain Luterbacher data yet. A reader emailed me this morning saying it was KNMI, but I am trying to clarify that as I can’t get it yet.

There are grey versions of data from Bradley’s associates e.g. speleothem data and that will be very hard to get.